28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hryncewiz · filed 2026-01-09(c)(3)

Because the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will DECLINE to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Zaykaria · filed 2026-01-09(c)(3)

The Court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Thus, the Court dismisses the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Draghi · filed 2026-01-09(c)(3)

Given that dismissal, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, which are dismissed without prejudice to Draghi refiling those claims in an appropriate state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Monet · filed 2026-01-13(c)(3)

Here, all federal claims have been dismissed, and the action has not proceeded past the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, as to these remaining state-law claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction and DISMISSES them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Miles · filed 2026-01-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law wrongful death and respondeat superior claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

MCCOMAS · filed 2026-01-14(c)(3)

Having dismissed all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Georgia state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims.

Maclin-Shelton · filed 2026-01-14(c)(3)

However, with the dismissal of Maclin-Shelton’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the sole remaining state-law claim by dismissing it without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

White · filed 2026-01-14(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Saitta · filed 2026-01-14(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of federal law, the Court exercises its discretion and grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims.

After dismissing all federal claims, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Webster · filed 2026-01-15(c)(3)

This Court, recognizing its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant Walnut Park’s surviving state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial, absent unusual circumstances.

Simcox · filed 2026-01-15(c)(3)

Because neither party identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify retaining jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims, therefore, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction without evaluating its merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brock · filed 2026-01-15(c)(3)

However, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... After considering the relevant factors, including the fact that this case is in a very early stage and involves questions of interpretation and application of state law, the Court has determined that remand is proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Kelly · filed 2026-01-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed all Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims against those defendants.

DOE · filed 2026-01-15(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all the plaintiffs’ federal claims against defendants Jones and Diaz. ... A district court may appropriately discontinue its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against Jones and Diaz.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jeffreys · filed 2026-01-15(c)(3)

However, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case because Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

King · filed 2026-01-16(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all of Plaintiff’s claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim for false imprisonment and attorneys’ fees.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all federal claims to retain related state claims when judicial economy favors doing so and to decline jurisdiction over others when factors such as comity favor remand.

LeBlanc · filed 2026-01-16(c)(3)

Regarding Plaintiff’s remaining claims under NYSHRL, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Discovery is complete, and briefing is complete on Defendants’ summary judgment motion, but there are no previous decisions affecting the merits, and the pretrial proceedings that occurred will not be lost if the case is remanded.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Pampinella · filed 2026-01-16(c)(3)

Because the Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and thus declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Goodrich · filed 2026-01-16(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, and seeing “nothing that would overcome this starting presumption,” id., the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand them to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Harris · filed 2026-01-20(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction is not mandatory, and a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VI and VII for the Moving Defendants, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Adams · filed 2026-01-20(c)(3)

As no federal claims remain in this case against Defendant Gist, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Adams’ state law tort claims, including any attempted negligence and assault and battery.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Marquez · filed 2026-01-20(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims against APS, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses Plaintiff’s state- law claims against APS without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Arnold v. Holmes · filed 2026-01-22(c)(3)

When a court dismisses “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. ... Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Arnold’s state law claims, it will dismiss those claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Long · filed 2026-01-22(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has not alleged a federal claim, the Court declines to consider his state- law claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Boyd · filed 2026-01-22(c)(3)

Given that the bases for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction have been disposed of, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Hustad · filed 2026-01-26(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiff’s federal and state claims form part of the same case or controversy, as they all stem from Defendant Hustad’s alleged misappropriation of “trade secrets” upon resigning from Geminatio, and the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s only federal claim. ... For these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice to re-filing in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, after weighing statutory and common law factors.

Mushatt · filed 2026-01-26(c)(3)

Here, the statutory factors are satisfied because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. ... As a result, the statutory and common law factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hickey-Mach · filed 2026-01-26(c)(3)

The Court dismisses all the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims alleging civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bellinsky · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if there is a jurisdictional basis for doing so, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Because the Court will dismiss all of plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s IIED claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; a defendant’s immunity from suit does not necessarily require the court to retain those claims.

Bellinsky · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

Even accepting the DA Defendants’ argument that prosecutorial immunity means being immune from suit, the Court finds that this does not present a compelling reason to stray from the general rule that, “[w]hen all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Aguilera · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

Where, as here, all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the exercise of jurisdiction over any remaining state claim is a matter of the Court’s discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claims survive.

SHIPLEY · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

Because no federal claims survive, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed.

SHAPIRO · filed 2026-01-28(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain in this action, there is no “affirmative justification” for addressing Plaintiff’s state law claims and it would not serve judicial economy to proceed on state claims alone, especially when Plaintiff has disclaimed them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims.

Vaughn v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2026-01-29(c)(3)

Because plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim, the court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim, which will be dismissed without prejudice as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2026-01-29(c)(3)

We dismissed all claims over which we have original jurisdiction. ... We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Pauley · filed 2026-01-29(c)(3)

The Court has now dismissed the only counts arguably raising a claim for relief under federal law. ... The Court specifically declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims in the remaining counts.

Section 1367 permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when it has invested little time or resources in the case.

Caldwell · filed 2026-01-30(c)(3)

Here, the Court sees no compelling reason for it to retain jurisdiction in the absence of federal claims, as the Court has not invested significant time or resources into the case thus far and, indeed, all of the Court’s time has been devoted to the federal issues. ... Thus, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

FEHNEL · filed 2026-01-30(c)(3)

At this point, as the federal claims have been dismissed, this Court exercises its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, as there is no affirmative justification to do otherwise.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Snyder v. William K. Cather, et al. · filed 2026-02-02(c)(3)

The Court has discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over these claims even after dismissing all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Snyder’s remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

JAMES · filed 2026-02-02(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3). Because the Plaintiffs’ RICO claims were the sole jurisdictional basis upon which this action was brought to this Court, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim.

BANKSTON · filed 2026-02-02(c)(3)

As to the negligence claim Judge Dodge recommended that the claim be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), thereby declining supplemental jurisdiction, but allowing for Plaintiff to refile this state claim in state court should he choose to do so. This Court agrees.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly early in litigation.

Romain · filed 2026-02-02(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Romains’ state law defamation claim, given the early stage of this litigation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Daniels · filed 2026-02-02(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claim for failure to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Reeners · filed 2026-02-03(c)(3)

However, now that the Court has determined that Plaintiffs federal claims in Count I will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims in Count II and Count III, will dismiss these claims without prejudice, and will thus dismiss this entire action in an accompanying order.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gesell · filed 2026-02-03(c)(3)

See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [pendent state-law claim] if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”). The Court has considered the relevant factors and concludes that they favor remand.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

ELIE · filed 2026-02-04(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Elie’s state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Fink v. Ohannessian · filed 2026-02-05(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fink’s remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because it properly dismissed his federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hubbard · filed 2026-02-05(c)(3)

The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the absence of any claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Bankhead · filed 2026-02-05(c)(3)

In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff remains unable to allege a viable federal claim to support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs state law claims in Counts V, VI, and VII as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it disposes of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Douglas · filed 2026-02-05(c)(3)

Having found that Detective Haynes is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ only federal claim, Count I, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, Counts II, III, IV, and VI.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no claims within its original jurisdiction remain.

Ventura · filed 2026-02-05(c)(3)

Because no federal claims remain in the Complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Kessinger · filed 2026-02-06(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Kessinger’s state law claims and will remand those claims to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County for consideration.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no viable federal claim remains.

Ward · filed 2026-02-06(c)(3)

And because Plaintiff has no viable federal claim against the newspaper, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

HUNTER K. LUNDGREN v. JOSHUA HAMLETT, JAMES ZAHN, COLONEL MATT PERRY, CAPTAIN CHRISTY WALLACE, RALPH BELLO, WILLIAM “CHI · filed 2026-02-06(c)(3)

And with all federal claims subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Lundgren’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Bey · filed 2026-02-06(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all Plaintiff’s federal claims, it will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Gavilan-Cruz · filed 2026-02-06(c)(3)

However, because all federal Section 1983 claims must be dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gavilan- Cruz’s numerous state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Scarpellino · filed 2026-02-07(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed all federal claims at the summary-judgment stage, and mindful of the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Naki · filed 2026-02-10(c)(3)

Here, the Court has determined that summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ federal claims is warranted. Accordingly, it declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Gray · filed 2026-02-10(c)(3)

To the extent Mr. Gray alleges any claims under state law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, as all federal claims in this action are dismissed as not plausible. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Kinnel · filed 2026-02-10(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

RUZBACKI · filed 2026-02-11(c)(3)

The Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction and it declines, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, absent factors warranting retention.

WILLIAMS-TURNER · filed 2026-02-11(c)(3)

The Court finds that no factors or extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant it exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Williams-Turner’s state-law claims defamation at Count V, conversion at Count XII, and intentional infliction of emotional distress at Count XII.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over State-law claims after dismissing the claim supporting original jurisdiction.

Beard · filed 2026-02-12(c)(3)

After reviewing the record in this matter, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under State law. The Court dismissed the claim over which Defendants invoked its original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claims remain.

Lange · filed 2026-02-12(c)(3)

Having found that Lange has failed to state a claim upon which he is entitled to relief under any of his federal causes of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lange’s state-law claims because no live federal claims remain in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Garcia · filed 2026-02-13(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Garcia’s territorial law claims, and will therefore dismiss those claims without prejudice.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

R.T. · filed 2026-02-13(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims against each Defendant, it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Saffold · filed 2026-02-13(c)(3)

Because the court has concluded that the plaintiff has no federal claims against the defendants, it will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

O'Connell · filed 2026-02-13(c)(3)

Because all claims over which the court exercised original subject matter jurisdiction have been dismissed, the court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims based on comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Davis · filed 2026-02-17(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court finds comity, judicial economy, and lack of issues of federal policy weigh in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hallacy · filed 2026-02-17(c)(3)

Given that the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will concomitantly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims and makes no assessment of their merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

MOORE · filed 2026-02-17(c)(3)

To the extent that Mr. Moore intended to bring a state law claim for gross negligence, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim because all the federal law claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Brumley · filed 2026-02-18(c)(3)

Since the Court determined Plaintiff’s federal claims cannot go forward,23 i.e., “claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the Court “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Garrett M. Cook v. Micheal Brooks · filed 2026-02-19(c)(3)

Because the district court did not err in dismissing Cook’s federal claims, it properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lewis v. Aldi Inc. · filed 2026-02-20(c)(3)

Once it has dismissed all federal claims in a case, the court has the discre- tion to either continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims or dismiss them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Wright · filed 2026-02-20(c)(3)

Although the court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over “other claims,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the court may decline to do so if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the court has concluded that all of the federal claims asserted in the operative complaint and the proposed amendments are or would be subject to dismissal at the pleading stage. Consequently, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other claims that Wright has attempted to assert under the laws of D.C., Virginia, or another state.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Smiley Auto Group, LLC v. Village of Maywood · filed 2026-02-23(c)(3)

Further, because the Court dismisses the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction because all federal claims were dismissed when those claims are reinstated on appeal.

Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

And after dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Id. at *17 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because we conclude that Plaintiffs have alleged plausible Fourth Amendment violations, the district court’s reasoning no longer applies. So we reverse the dismissal of these claims too.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Williams v. Town of Clinton · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court concludes that it is appropriate for the Court to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Houser · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Wilson · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

Furthermore, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, a district court generally declines supplemental jurisdiction unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support retaining it.

El v. Fresenius Medical Care North America · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

Considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not support retaining jurisdiction here. Accordingly, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims (Count III, Count VI, Count XV).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

HAND · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed Hand’s federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jordan · filed 2026-02-24(c)(3)

The Court dismisses all the federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state and municipal law claims — his Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Causes of Action — alleging violations of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, and an unconscionable pension contract.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Stith · filed 2026-02-25(c)(3)

To the extent Stith asserts any state-law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and such claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state law claims without prejudice when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Johnson v. Indiana Department of Child Services · filed 2026-02-25(c)(3)

Upon due consideration, the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice because the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Powell · filed 2026-02-25(c)(3)

As Powell’s federal claims will be dismissed, and where the Court lacks original Jurisdiction over Powell’s state law claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Greene · filed 2026-02-25(c)(3)

With all federal claims dismissed from this case, the court relinquishes jurisdiction over the state-law spoliation claim without prejudice to renewal in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

PELLA · filed 2026-02-25(c)(3)

Thus, with no properly pled federal claims appearing on the face of Plaintiff's Complaint and no other basis for this Court's original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims at this time. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court finds no extraordinary circumstances warranting an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses all federal claims before trial, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Turner · filed 2026-02-26(c)(3)

As explained above, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any federal cause of action. Principles of comity encourage courts to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all of the federal claims are disposed of prior to trial. See Hansen v. Bd. Of Trs. of Hamilton Southeastern Sch. Corp., 551 F.3d 599, 608 (7th Cir. 2008); Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[I]t is the well-established law of this circuit that the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial."); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims in this case and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Koehler · filed 2026-02-26(c)(3)

Having granted summary judgment as to Koehler’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Koehler’s state law assault and battery claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Miller v. Thirteenth District Court of Sandoval County · filed 2026-02-26(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims against Defendants Woods and Baysinger, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Morgan · filed 2026-02-27(c)(3)

To the extent Morgan also asserts his due process claim under the Pennsylvania Constitution ( Doc. 35, Count III), we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and to remand those claims in a removed case.

Success on Sussex, LLC v. City of Detroit · filed 2026-02-27(c)(3)

Here, the likelihood of multiple litigations is minimal. And the parties raise novel issues of statutory interpretation under state law. Because Michigan state courts are best equipped to address those questions, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims and counterclaims and will remand the case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Loveless · filed 2026-02-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because the Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Hoel · filed 2026-03-02(c)(3)

In light of the Court’s dismissal of Counts One through Four, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hoel’s Count Five, “State Law Claims for Conversion and Misconduct,” and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Wesley · filed 2026-03-03(c)(3)

Having dismissed the Estate’s claims under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

KITTRELL · filed 2026-03-03(c)(3)

Because the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants with respect to Plaintiff’s federal law claims, no claims remain over which there is original jurisdiction and considerations of “judicial economy, convenience, and fairness” do not support retaining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jamison · filed 2026-03-04(c)(3)

Regarding Plaintiffs’ state law claims brought under Mississippi’s dyslexia laws, Miss. Code Ann. § 37-173-16(1) and Miss. Code Ann. § 37-173-15(1)(d), this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) due to the Court’s dismissal of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Delgadillo · filed 2026-03-04(c)(3)

Cumberland University’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART and Delgadillo’s claims under Title IX are DISMISSED; ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Delgadillo’s state law claims, which are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Delgadillo’s ability to pursue them in state court; ... This is a final order.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Fernandez · filed 2026-03-04(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Riegel · filed 2026-03-04(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims and they are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking judicial economy, convenience, and fairness into account.

Blount · filed 2026-03-04(c)(3)

The Court finds that consideration of “judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties” does not “provide an affirmative justification” for retaining jurisdiction over Blount’s negligence and medical malpractice claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

BOOKER · filed 2026-03-05(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Booker’s remaining state law defamation claim (Count IV) and dismisses it without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Terry · filed 2026-03-05(c)(3)

Here, the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims against CARES and Wesenberg and only state law claims remain. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against CARES and Wesenberg and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hontz · filed 2026-03-05(c)(3)

Here, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this matter based on the dismissal of all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Huff v. Casey County · filed 2026-03-06(c)(3)

Therefore, because the claims over which this Court would have original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Huff has asserted, and the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case is at a preliminary stage.

Doe · filed 2026-03-06(c)(3)

As the parties’ claims and defenses “warrant[] a[n] [Oklahoma] state court’s consideration,” and given the preliminary stage of this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Price · filed 2026-03-06(c)(3)

Because Price fails to state a federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

T.D.H. · filed 2026-03-06(c)(3)

Upon consideration of these factors and the record before us, we find nothing to distinguish this from the usual case. Therefore, the remaining state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when little time has been spent litigating the state claims.

Queen · filed 2026-03-09(c)(3)

In this case, all federal claims have been dismissed, and these remaining Defendants have not yet been served. The parties, thus, have not spent a great deal of time litigating the state law claims. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that it should decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Wilson · filed 2026-03-09(c)(3)

That general rule applies here, and because none of the discretionary factors favor retaining jurisdiction of the state-law claims, this Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Rivera · filed 2026-03-10(c)(3)

To the extent Rivera brings state law claims against Gatestone, see, e.g., ECF No. 81 at 18 (alleging that Gatestone “participated in unjust enrichment”), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and DISMISSES them without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Harris · filed 2026-03-10(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) authorizes a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when the court has dismissed all other claims over which the court has original jurisdiction. The remaining claims in Harris’s complaint—for wrongful termination, tortious interference with a contract or business expectancy, and coercion—arise from state law. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Andrews · filed 2026-03-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2026-03-10(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Therefore, we agree with Judge Bloom’s recommendation that we should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hunt-Brown · filed 2026-03-10(c)(3)

The Court therefore finds that “the interest in comity—leaving to the states to decide novel questions of state-law—clearly predominates here” and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NMHRA claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Weathersby · filed 2026-03-11(c)(3)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss any remaining state-law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Dillon · filed 2026-03-11(c)(3)

The only remaining claims in this lawsuit are Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (allowing court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state-law claim when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed early in the case.

Lucchesi · filed 2026-03-11(c)(3)

Accordingly, where this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the plan in question is not ERISA-governed, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the accompanying state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Landon · filed 2026-03-11(c)(3)

After balancing all of the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; reinstating federal claims removes that basis for declining it.

Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2026-03-12(c)(3)

And after dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Id. at *17 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because we conclude that Plaintiffs have alleged plausible Fourth Amendment violations, the district court’s reasoning no longer applies. So we reverse the dismissal of these claims too.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Sylvan · filed 2026-03-12(c)(3)

In the absence of a viable federal claim, the federal question jurisdiction under which this action was filed is lacking and the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. ... In the exercise of its discretion, the Court will decline any further consideration of Plaintiff’s state law claims, leaving the merits of those claims to potentially be determined in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Azimi · filed 2026-03-12(c)(3)

Having concluded that Azimi’s federal claims must be dismissed, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Azimi’s two state-law counts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hunt v. Erie · filed 2026-03-12(c)(3)

In light of this, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Gerken · filed 2026-03-12(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of a plausible federal claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims that may be reasonably construed from the complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff's complaint and dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Rockette · filed 2026-03-13(c)(3)

Turning to Mr. Rockette’s state law claims, in cases such as this one, where all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) grants this court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Since the underlying federal claims against Defendants are being dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Rockette’s state law claims against them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed.

Hampton · filed 2026-03-13(c)(3)

There being no remaining claims against Webb arising under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Webb for malicious prosecution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Marquez · filed 2026-03-13(c)(3)

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal law claims against All Faiths, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses Plaintiff’s state- law claims against All Faiths without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Dickerson v. BPP PCV Owners LLC · filed 2026-03-16(c)(3)

Finally, because Dickerson failed to properly allege any claim under federal law, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Lenard · filed 2026-03-16(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss all of Mr. Lenard’s constitutional claims, and it will exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims by dismissing these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Harper v. City of Valley · filed 2026-03-16(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court has discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim—the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction—is due to be dismissed with prejudice, the Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering factors such as comity, judicial economy, and convenience.

Scowden · filed 2026-03-16(c)(3)

This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. In addition to comity, several other factors weight against retaining jurisdiction. One of them is that the Court has given no consideration to the merits of any of plaintiff’s claims, as no motions to dismiss were filed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims before trial, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Pollard · filed 2026-03-17(c)(3)

Thus, the general rule is that when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. There are, however, unusual cases in which the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point to federal decision of the state-law claims on the merits. This is not such a case. Therefore, the supplemental state-law claim is dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff fails to state a federal claim.

Forrester v. Reshad · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Forrester’s state law claims because Forrester failed to state a federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against defendants after dismissing the only federal claim against them.

Wezenter · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

Because I grant summary judgment to the City Defendants on Count Four, the only federal claim alleged against these Defendants, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in Counts Five through Ten.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Zeno · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

Because the federal claims asserted in the complaint are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claim asserted under state law and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claims remain.

Arpin · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

Because there are no federal law claims remaining, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Arpin’s claims arising under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

RICHARD · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

Where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Peay · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law breach of contract claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and that claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Jones · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

To the extent Plaintiff raises any state claims against the defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. District courts have discretion to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Moore · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)

A federal court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over a state-law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... So, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and denies the Merit Board’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over DCAPA claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Morgan v. District of Columbia · filed 2026-03-20(c)(3)

The Court will therefore join the other Courts in this District that have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DCAPA claims following the dismissal of all claims that were cognizable in federal court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Wruck · filed 2026-03-23(c)(3)

Because this Court has dismissed the only federal cla1m—Wruck’s FTCA claim against the BLM—the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and remands them to Idaho state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Riley · filed 2026-03-23(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sanders v. United Way of North Carolina · filed 2026-03-23(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiff intends to bring state law claims against defendant in this suit, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them in light of the dismissal of the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... To the extent plaintiff has alleged state law claims against defendant, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims and they are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

McDonald · filed 2026-03-24(c)(3)

Specifically, § 1367(c)(3) provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Hampton · filed 2026-03-24(c)(3)

There being no remaining claims against these Defendants arising under federal law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against them for malicious prosecution.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

White · filed 2026-03-25(c)(3)

This leaves pending only state law claims of wrongful eviction, breach of contract, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Rogers, all of which are before this Court solely pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court declines to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kirkland · filed 2026-03-25(c)(3)

So the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), GRANTS the MSWCD Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (doc. 68), and dismisses Kirkland’s defamation claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Calvin · filed 2026-03-25(c)(3)

The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, and these claims (Count IV, Count V, Count VI, and Count VIII) will be dismissed in their entirety without prejudice.